Jegadamabal & Ors. v. Manickam @ Ramalingam & Ors.

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 24.07.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANA.S.No.786 of 19981.Union of India rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Pondicherry.2.The Deputy Collector (Rev) – cum - Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal...Appellants / RespondentsVs.1.Jegadamabal2.Manickam @ Ramalingam3.Sivaramakrishnan @ Subramanian4.Surumathy @ Renganayagi5.Thillagavathy6.Sivagamy7.Jegadeeswari8.Abirami @ Arulmozhi .. Respondents / ClaimantsPrayer:-This appeal has been filed under section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act against the decree and judgment dated 19.08.1998in LAOP.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the Additional DistrictJudge, Pondicherry.For Appellant : Mr.R.Natrajan, Additional Government Pleader, PondicherryFor Respondents : Mr.S.Rajendaran (for R1) Mr.S.R.Thirugnanam (for R2 to R8)JUDGMENTThis appeal has been directed against the judgment inLAOP.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional DistrictJudge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.2.The Government of Pondicherry have acquired 12 acres 76Ares 00 Ca of land in Kelaiyur Village of Karaikal Taluk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ comprised in S.Nos.56/1, 56/2, 56/3, 56/4, 56/5, 56/6, 57/1, 57/2,57/3, 57/4, 57/5, 57/6, 57/7, 71/1, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 74, 75/2,75/3, 76/4, 76/5 & 76/6 for the purpose of setting up a Gas PowerPlant by Electricity Department, Kariakal, at Kelaiyur Village.3. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following theformalities, had published notification under Section 4(1) of theLand Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in theGazette on 22.05.1991. On the basis of the data land, the LandAcquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.5,250/- perAre for the dry land and at Rs.3,200/- per Are for the wet landacquired by the Government for the purpose of setting up Gas PowerPlant by electricity department at Kelaiyur Villat in Karaikal.Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the LandAcquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objections beforehim, which was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal underSection 18 of the Act. 4.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the 3rd claimant wasexamined as P.W.1 and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 (Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3) weremarked on the side of the claimants. On the side of therespondents, the Special Tahsildar Mr.S.Nagarajan was examined asR.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were marked. After scanning theevidence both oral and documentary and after giving duedeliberations to the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe claimants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents,the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 –sale deeds taking into consideration the potentiality of the landsacquired and having come to the conclusion that the lands thatwere sold under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in the year 1990 ie., before theNotification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the lands acquiredby the Government are similar in nature, has raised thecompensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer fromRs.3,200/- per Are to Rs.4,000/- per Are. Aggrieved by thefindings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Government haspreferred this appeal.5.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader(Pondicherry) and also the learned counsel appearing for therespondents and considered their respective submissions.6.The learned Additional Government Pleader confined hisargument only in respect of deduction regarding developmentalcharges. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contendthat admittedly the lands acquired are not well developed one andare used for agricultural purposes and the Government had acquiredthe land for setting up Gas Power Plant for the ElectricityDepartment and for that lot of improvements to be made in thelands by the Government and towards that some deduction ought to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been made by the Land Acquisition Tribunal while awarding thecompensation. In support of this contention the learnedAdditional Government Pleader would rely on 2008(2) CTC 171 (TheSpecial Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare,Vridhachalam Vs. Sornambal @ Sornasundari and another). Theshort facts of the above said ratio are that about 2.63acres of land in R.S.No.24/3 and 1 acre 37 cents of land inR.S.No.24/6 in Budhamur Village, Vridhachalam, were acquired bythe Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of providing housesites for houseless dhobies and barbers. But the Land AcquisitionOfficer has fixed the compensation at Rs.90/- per cent (9026 perAcre). On appeal the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced andfixed the compensation at Rs.700/- per cent. Both the Governmentas well as the claimants have preferred appeal and cross-objectionrespectively before this Court. The learned Special GovernmentPleader for the Government in that case would contend that atleast25% deduction should be made from the compensation amount ofRs.7,000/- per acre (Rs.700/- per cent) towards developmentcharges. Relying on a ratio decidendi in AIR 2004 SC 2006 (KiranTandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another), thisCourt has allowed 20% deduction towards development charges. 7.The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry)would also based his reliance for the same proposition of law on2005(9) SCC 594 (Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue DivisionalOfficer Vs. Ramanjulu and others), and would contend that in acase where lands were acquired by the Government for expansion ofindustrial estate, the Honourable Apex Court has held that 15%deduction towards development charges to be made. In the saidcase also both the claimants as well as Land Acquisition Officerhave preferred appeal before the Honourable Apex Court. In thatcase, the learned Government Advocate for the Land AcquisitionOfficer before the Honourable Apex Court has contend that therewas no material placed before the Court to show as to what shouldbe the rate of escalation in price and that 20% escalation givenis not justified and that while determining the market value ofthe land acquired, they being agricultural land, proper deductionshould have been made towards developmental charges. Acceptingthe contention of the learned Government Advocate for the LandAcquisition Officer, the Honourable Apex Court has held asfollows:-"Admittedly, the lands acquired areagricultural lands. It is on record that these landshave potentialities for conversion into house sites.They are acquired for the third phase of expansion ofindustrial estate. In these circumstances, certainamount has to be deducted towards developmental charges.Ordinarily, one-third deduction towards developmentalcharges would be made, but in these cases, having regard https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the facts and circumstances, particularly taking noteof the fact that the lands are acquired for expansion ofindustrial estate, that too for the third phase, andalso taking note of the fact that the lands acquried arelevelled lands adjoining to developed lands for Phase Iand Phase II of industrial estate, we think it is justand appropriate to deduct fifteen per cent towardsdevelopmental charges."In the case on hand also the lands acquired are both dry and wetlands and the Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the compensationat Rs.4,000/- per Are on the basis of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, underwhich agricultural lands were sold. The Government has acquiredthe lands from the claimants taking into consideration that theyare fit to set up Gas Power Plant for the Electricity Department.The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) wouldcontend that the lands acquired by the Government in this LAOP areall wet lands and that necessary developmental measures are to betaken to make the land fit for setting up Gas Power Plant for theElectricity Department. Under such circumstances, applying thesame yardstick taken by the Honourable Apex Court in 2005(9) SCC594 (Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Vs.Ramanjulu and others), I hold that 15% deduction is to be madetowards developmental charges from the compensation amount ofRs.4,000/- per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal.8.The learned counsel for the respondents would contend thatfor the first time before this Court the appellants-Governmenthave raised the point that some deduction shall be given in theaward amount towards developmental charges. But even in the ratiodecidendi relied on before this Court the stand of deductiontowards developmental charges has been raised only before theappellate Court ie., before the High Court as well as before theApex Court and the same was considered for the first time beforethe appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the objectionraised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents holdsno water.9.In fine, the appeal is allowed in part and the decree andjudgment in LAOP.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the AdditionalDistrict Judge, Pondicherry, is modified and the compensation forthe land acquired by the Government is fixed as Rs.3,400/- per Areinstead of Rs.4,000/- per Are as fixed by the Land AcquisitionTribunal. The claimants are entitled to the said compensationamount of Rs.3,200/- per Are with solatium, interest on solatiumand additional compensation as permissible under the LandAcquisition Act. It is seen from the Order of this Court inCMP.No.10654 of 1999 in A.S.No.786/1998 the entire award amount(as per the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal) wasdeposited before the Tribunal and that the claimants were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount without furnishingany surety. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the balancefrom out of the remaining 50% of the award amount in deposit afteradjusting the same with the present award amount passed in thisappeal with accrued interest.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssvTo,1. The Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.2. The Section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Madras1 cc to S. Government Pleader, cum Sr. Public Prosecutor, forPondicherry, SR. 398041 cc to Mr.R. Thirugnanam, Advocate, SR. 39732A.S.No.786 of 1998MDR (CO)kk 4/3